Best non-dslr for no-flash action shots in low light

[jlda]

Hello,

I'm seeking opinions on non-dslr cameras to be used indoors, without flash, to capture action in low-light situations.

Thanks in advance!

[John_Reed]

Hello,

I'm seeking opinions on non-dslr cameras to be used indoors, without flash, to capture action in low-light situations.

Thanks in advance!You need a camera with the fastest lens, longest zoom, and highest available ISO. Amongst the non-dSLRs, that's undoubtedly any of the cameras in the Panasonic FZ line (3MP: DMC-FZ3; 4MP: DMC-FZ15; 5MP: DMC-FZ20), all of which have f2.8 lenses across their 12X zoom range, and give serviceable though not noise-free images at ISO 400. That said, even that "magic" combination of ingredients won't guarantee you fast enough shutter speeds to freeze indoor action. People have done fairly well at basketball games indoors, so if that's your kind of action and lighting, the Panasonics could work for you. IMO, if you want to go above ISO 400, dSLR is the only road to take. I think you have to be able to shoot at at least 1/125 or faster shutter speeds to do what you want.

[gary_hendricks]

Hi there

I like to bump the ISO setting on the camera up to 400. This allows action sequences indoors to be captured nicely. But you photos will end up more noisy, so try to use the Despeckable filter in your image editing software to clean it up.

:cool:

[jeisner]

If you want low-light usage, then yes 2.8 is an advantage, but the lack of gain-up on the EVF of the FZ line is a major disadvantage IMHO

Maybe look at the kodaks like the 6490 and 7590 (F2.7 - F3.7) the EVF gain-up and focusing ability in low light are a definate advantage over the FZ line, yes the FZs are better in other respects, but this was your main purchasing decision?

[John_Reed]

...you're not going to capture action with any non-dSLR camera, and chances wouldn't be too good WITH a dSLR! We're not talking 1/4 second shots here, in any case, right? Get real! :o

[jeisner]

Even in my fairly small lounge room under two Energy saver light globs (11w each, so 60w equiv.) taking photos of my dogs I found the FZ20 annoying to use, when compared to my previous camera (kodak dx6490) and no comparison to my DSLR, but that isn't a fair comparison, but comparing to the much cheaper DX6490 is I think fair.... The EVF was better in the DX6490 as was the low-light AF ability.

Dont even get me started on taking long exposure night shots on a tripod as it was completely useless. When I was in Sydney on holiday I wanted night shots of the harbour bridge and opera house the FZ20 was useless, I actually took shots to frame. i.e. take a shot, ok need to move left a bit, next shot, review that, ok need to move down a bit etc. all because the EVF/LCD was completely black. Kodak DX6490 didn't have this problem I could still see enough in the viewfinder to frame theh shot!!!

[John_Reed]

Even in my fairly small lounge room under two Energy saver light globs (11w each, so 60w equiv.) taking photos of my dogs I found the FZ20 annoying to use, when compared to my previous camera (kodak dx6490) and no comparison to my DSLR, but that isn't a fair comparison, but comparing to the much cheaper DX6490 is I think fair.... The EVF was better in the DX6490 as was the low-light AF ability.

Dont even get me started on taking long exposure night shots on a tripod as it was completely useless. When I was in Sydney on holiday I wanted night shots of the harbour bridge and opera house the FZ20 was useless, I actually took shots to frame. i.e. take a shot, ok need to move left a bit, next shot, review that, ok need to move down a bit etc. all because the EVF/LCD was completely black. Kodak DX6490 didn't have this problem I could still see enough in the viewfinder to frame theh shot!!!...but the OP wanted to take low-light action shots, in a sports arena. Your situation sounds like a lot slower than you'd need to freeze any kind of action at all, in my opinion. At least the FZ20 at full zoom, with its faster lens, will let more light into the frame for shooting the picture, won't it? If I'm wrong, I'll eat the crow? :confused: For example, what kind of shutter speeds were you seeing with the 7590? FZ20?

[jeisner]

In a sports arena, it is fairly well lit (not what I would call low-light) so yeah the FZ20 would be better in that situation!

[John_Reed]

In a sports arena, it is fairly well lit (not what I would call low-light) so yeah the FZ20 would be better in that situation!Peace, brother! These animated discussions keep this forum alive! Thanks for the dialogue, I learned something here.

[jlda]

Hi Guys,

Thanks for the feedback. Although I am interested in shooting sports in gyms, they're not necessarily always well lit. And, the original post specified low-light because I'd also be interested in shooting dancing and other auditorium-based performances. At this time, I'm willing to accept a somewhat noisier picture if I can capture some action...

[jeisner]

Peace, brother! These animated discussions keep this forum alive! Thanks for the dialogue, I learned something here.

No Problem! ;-)

[Jack C]

Low Light. No Flash. Non-D-SLR camera. No tripod? :rolleyes:

You are never going to get any good pictures in those conditions without a tripod. They will either be blurry or too dark.

If you want to take good pictures without a flash and ISO lower than 200, you first need a tripod. If not a tripod, then at least a monopod.

Which non-SLR digital camera? The best advice I can give is for you to look for a camera that you can manually control the shutter speed.

[PhilR.]

Low Light. No Flash. Non-D-SLR camera. No tripod? :rolleyes:

You are never going to get any good pictures in those conditions without a tripod. They will either be blurry or too dark.

If you want to take good pictures without a flash and ISO lower than 200, you first need a tripod. If not a tripod, then at least a monopod.

Which non-SLR digital camera? The best advice I can give is for you to look for a camera that you can manually control the shutter speed.

Low light photography generally does need a tripod, however, a tripod will be of no use in this context. The original poster wants to take action shots. This means higher shutter speeds. Higher shutter speeds will cancel out the need for a tripod. A tripod is only needed when the shutter speeds are too long to handhold the exposure.

I would agree w/Mr. Reed and say that one is unlikely to get any good photos in this situation, unless your camera can attain high ISO's. Virtually all non-dslr's go up to about 400 at the most, and I beleive some of the more expensive ones going up to 800. There is however a new camera from Fuji that was announced yesterday. It is a p&s that goes up to ISO 1600. Might be worth a look...

PhilR.

[gary_hendricks]

Low Light. No Flash. Non-D-SLR camera. No tripod? :rolleyes:

You are never going to get any good pictures in those conditions without a tripod. They will either be blurry or too dark.

If you want to take good pictures without a flash and ISO lower than 200, you first need a tripod. If not a tripod, then at least a monopod.

Which non-SLR digital camera? The best advice I can give is for you to look for a camera that you can manually control the shutter speed.


Jack C, I'd suggest you take a look at the Canon A95. It is a non-DSLR, very cheap, but allows you full control over shutter, aperture and ISO. Full creative control is very rare in non-DSLRs, but the A95 is an exception.

[jeisner]

Jack C, I'd suggest you take a look at the Canon A95. It is a non-DSLR, very cheap, but allows you full control over shutter, aperture and ISO. Full creative control is very rare in non-DSLRs, but the A95 is an exception.

There are MANY non-dslr cameras that have manual modes that allow you to set aperture, shutter and ISO, the problem isn't the lack of settings but that the quality of anything but the lowest ISOs (200 and below) is just terrible!

[pmnapier]

When I was in Sydney on holiday I wanted night shots of the harbour bridge and opera house the FZ20 was useless, I actually took shots to frame. i.e. take a shot, ok need to move left a bit, next shot, review that, ok need to move down a bit etc. all because the EVF/LCD was completely black.
Doesn't sound like too much fun. And certainly not to efficient. I wonder how Jeff composed his standard night shot of SF for his review? Perhaps the skyline had enough light to show up???

[jlda]

Low light photography generally does need a tripod, however, a tripod will be of no use in this context. The original poster wants to take action shots. This means higher shutter speeds. Higher shutter speeds will cancel out the need for a tripod. A tripod is only needed when the shutter speeds are too long to handhold the exposure.

I would agree w/Mr. Reed and say that one is unlikely to get any good photos in this situation, unless your camera can attain high ISO's. Virtually all non-dslr's go up to about 400 at the most, and I beleive some of the more expensive ones going up to 800. There is however a new camera from Fuji that was announced yesterday. It is a p&s that goes up to ISO 1600. Might be worth a look...

PhilR.

Hi there,

Would it be an oversimplification to say then that I should look for a non-dslr with as high an ISO setting as possible, everything else being equal?

Thanks!

[gary_hendricks]

Hello,

I'm seeking opinions on non-dslr cameras to be used indoors, without flash, to capture action in low-light situations.

Thanks in advance!

Indoors, without flash and action - very challenging! I dun think you can get good photos in these conditions without a flash. Really.

[MinhDuc]

I suggest Konica Minolta Maxxum 7D. It is D-SLR digi camera with anti-shake feature. It may be the best choice.

[speaklightly]

Digital photos, like those being discussed in this thread, are indeed possible. The light level available is the real key to this type of digital photos.

Here are some of my examples:www.digicamlady.smugmug.com/gallery/369133

These were done with a variety of digital cameras, using this technique: increase the ISO to 400 and then tweak the exposure with the digital camera's exposure compensation feature to achieve the optimum facial tones.

Speaklightly

[PhilR.]

Hello jlda,

Speaklightly's photos are a very good example of how easy it is to get properly exposed photos in low light situation, but also how hard it is to get a good "action" shot. The shot of the juggler, which is exposed quite well, was done with the camera's ISO as high as it will go, with the lens as open as it will go, and yet the racket in his right hand is blurred. If this not-to-quickly moving object is already blurred, can you imagine how blurred your action shots will be?

In response to your question below.... it probably is an oversimplification to just get the highest ISO camera. Other things come into play, such as the ability to adjust shutter speeds and apertures, and perhaps white balance even. The presence or absence of a long zoom might also sway your decision, and this can have an effect on exposure as well.

PhilR.

[speaklightly]

Jlda-

Yes, my friend Phil is very correct. As, my samples demonstrate, to get photos like I have demonstrated, you are operating at the very limits of your digital camera's capabilities. That means the highest ISO, the largest aperture, and the fastest shutter speed available, which will not be very fast. Therefore stopping real action becomes somewhat problematic. You have run the non dSLR camera to its virtual limits.

What is the answer, you might ask? Well, I know that your original specified "non dSLR cameras", but the only way that you are going to get to higher ISO numbers that are not sabotaged by electronic noise is to go to a dSLR where you will find ISO 1600 and 3200 available to you.

That is what I had to do. And, I have a very long record of experience with low light level/non flash digital photos, just about 50+YEARS.

Speaklightly

[Geoff Chandler]

I go with speaklightly on this as I have taken some similar shots and had some really good ones as well (particularly with some of my sons school performances) - sure a degree of experimentation is required. Appart from all the tech talk, a certain amount of timing can help. - eg. At my daughters Christmas concert it was very low light - too low for comfort really - so I wedged myself & camera up against a pillar for stability and watched carfully the action. When the kids all threw their arms up in the air there was a moment in time when they were reletively still before the arms came down - that's the moment to gently squeeze the shutter release. Dancers also have a 'still' moment when they change direction as they come to a stop and just before they turn - watch carefully for these moments as even in really low light you can get away with it if you have steadied the camera.
My technique, like so many others, is to bump up the asa, set the white balance to manual if poss - or select the nearest pre set to the situation and be prepared for a little pp, then personally I set the cam. to Aperture priority and open it up to max, allowing the camera to select the fastest shutter speed for correct exposure. Many performances are floodlight, depending on the lighting I have found under exposing helps to maintain good flesh colour/tone.
That's my 2 penny worth.
Geoff

[speaklightly]

Thanks Geoff-

That is exactly the correct technique. A lot of how you are sucessful with Low Light Level/No Flash digital photos is wholly dependent upon the level of lighting that is available on scene.

If it is low, you are going to have a difficult time getting any digital photos. Going to the pillar was exactly the correct thing to do. Another option is to use a tripod or a monopod for stability. If the light level is greater than normal, then you have a winner. Taking your digital photos will be a good deal easier.

Speaklightly

[jlda]

... My technique, like so many others, is to bump up the asa, set the white balance to manual if poss - or select the nearest pre set to the situation and be prepared for a little pp, ...
Geoff


Hi Geoff,

Thank you (and Phil and Speaklightly and everybody else!) for all of the great info. I've actually accidentally stumbled over some of these techniques. I have a question, though -- What's "a little pp?"

jlda


... And, I have a very long record of experience with low light level/non flash digital photos, just about 50+YEARS.
speaklightly

Hi Speaklightly,

50+ years?

jlda

[gary_hendricks]

I go with speaklightly on this as I have taken some similar shots and had some really good ones as well (particularly with some of my sons school performances) - sure a degree of experimentation is required. Appart from all the tech talk, a certain amount of timing can help. - eg. At my daughters Christmas concert it was very low light - too low for comfort really - so I wedged myself & camera up against a pillar for stability and watched carfully the action. When the kids all threw their arms up in the air there was a moment in time when they were reletively still before the arms came down - that's the moment to gently squeeze the shutter release.

Very nice tips - there. I always have trouble shooting such performances.

[rokahn]

Anyone have insight into which small cameras take best pictures in low-light, handheld, no flash situations? By "small", I mean under 7.5oz/215g (e.g. Canon S100). By action shots, I mean informal portrait photography, not dance performances.

I typically handhold by bracing against something and shoot at 1/30th or so. If the subject is still, I can take acceptable shots as slow as a second. Pushing the ASA up to 400 on the Canon S100 makes the images unacceptably noisy so I typically try to hold the shot up to 1/2sec and take several shots, asking subjects not to move.

I'd like to find a small camera that has a larger aperture and/or has less noise at higher ASA's. Since all these rangefinders seem to top out at 2.8 f-stop, I think I'm looking for a camera with lower-noise electronics so I can turn up the gain without unacceptable noise. I'd be willing to give up some resolution (some older cameras used to have low-light quarter-resolution modes where they binned the pixels to collect more photons/pixel) but I haven't heard about this feature in any modern cameras. The SD300/400 seems like my next camera unless I find something that will collect light more efficiently since these low-light situations are my most common shots--I prefer no-flash images because the color of the ambient lighting is a big part of my memory of the event.

Thanks for any help

[Novice]

See for Sony P150. It seems to me among the best compact cameras.

[speaklightly]

Rokahn-

Your best bet might be the Fuji F-10 which is due to be released in April. It is only a 3X optical zoom camera and the apture falls dangerously low to F 5.0 at max zoom, but it does have a maximum ISO number of 1600.

Sarah Joyce

[RobinPoindexter]

I have the same issue, exactly, but wish to purchase a DSLR, in order to shoot theater pictures.. ... low light, no flash, stage lights in distance, moving objects (well, people). I need to make a quick decision about which one to buy, as I one to return that has an expiration time for returning... Which or which several DSLRs that aren't over 1400 dollars would you recommend?

I'd prefer to buy one that comes with some type of lense, even if it's not a good one, and I do realize that I'd have to get the right lense for this particular need. It's just that I'd like to start out using the camera right away just for general pic's and so that I could get used to the camera itself before investing again in the appropriate lense for this scenario. But I would love to hear as well about which lense combinations with which camera would be most ideal for this scenario.

Also, one other consideration for me would be size and ease of manipulating. I do realize that I'm probably asking too much, but the less cumbersome the better when in a theater, given that we would want to do our best to limit the space I need. The easier it is for me to hold and manipulate, the more confident I will be.

Please share any and all suggestions, particularly specific cameras and/or lenses that you would recommend. Thanks very much~~~

[MrForgetable]

The kit lens version of the Canon EOS Digital Rebel, Digital Rebel XT, and Nikon D70 all fall in your bracket quite comfortably, with all of them leaving you some money for an extra lens (or two?) for the $1400 dollar budget.

However, if you can stretch a little bit farther, maybe go for the Canon EOS 20D. It has quite amazing low light performance (pretty low noise even up to ISO 3200!).

[speaklightly]

However...-

Don't we have to stop for a moment and take a deep breath. The ORIGINAL post was: "What is the best NON-dSLR camera for low light..." In truth, there is no "non dSLR camera that is really ideally suited to low light level theater photography.

With that in mind, we then moved to exploring dSLR digital cameras, that due to their ability to utilize much higher ISO settings were most probably a bit better suited for the low light level challenge.

We pretty much established that the Canon 350XT, the Pentax 1stDS, and the Nikon D-70 could do a more than adequate job under the low light level prescrition. So where do we go from here?

Sarah Joyce

[juliezim]

Olympus has great lenses and low-light capabilities. The bigger your lens circumference, the better. Small cameras that telescope a tiny zoom circumference shut out the available light.

I have an Olympus Camedia c-3040 zoom, which is three years old - but has lots of manual options and a "super bright" zoom lense - I've taken no-flash photos in theaters and I've taken night pictures on a beach that could look like day with minor Photoshop work. It is only 3.3mp but I've been very satisfied with the photo quality. It has a very crappy lens cap system - I bought a cap keeper but the cap does not stay on very well.
However, the smaller Olympus cameras with sliding doors tend to break. :)

[speaklightly]

juliezim-

Please do not be misled. The Olympus C-765 does not focus well nor perform well in low light levels. While it is a rather good digital camera in normal lighting. It fails the low light level test.

Sarah Joyce

[wirawan0]

Now...after Fujifim F10 is out, anyone cares to write about this low-light photography with F10? How also about Fujifim E550? I'd love to hear!

[speaklightly]

Jlda-

Fuji has just introduced a new point and shoot digital camera capable of using ISO settings as high as 1600, which is 4 time higher than can be achieved by any of the Panasonic FZ series cameras. That is a huge advanatge. dpreview has reviewed the Fuji F-10 and recommended it.

You might ask what does an ISO 1600/no flash digital photo look like. The photo below illustrates that quite well.

Sarah Joyce

[Rex914]

That's pretty good, but you had to be pretty close to the stage to get that shot. The Panasonics can still work if you don't get a seat near the front. They may have a weak ISO, but their extra large apertures more than make these kinds of shots possible. That's why we DSLR people use DSLR's, precisely to take these shots no matter what the conditions are. :)

Edit: BTW, have you tried out the Z1 yet? I actually find that camera more impressive because it's in the same class as the Nikon S1, Sony T33, etc.

[speaklightly]

Rex-

I own several Panasonic FZ series digital cameras and I am indeed aware of their capabilities. However, wouldn't you agree that there is a big difference between the FZ's ISO 400 and the Fuji F-10's ISO 1600. No, I have not tried the Z-1.

However, what I was attempting to call attention to was the fact that there is indeed a point and shoot digital camera, the Fuji F-10, that has the same ISO capability as the Canon 350XT or the Nikon D-70, both dSLR cameras. The Fuji F-10 is currently selling for about $325 on the internet. That is a big difference when you consider that the 350XT and the D-70 are selling for around $950.

As long as you hold the F-10 to little or no zoom, you will be amazed at the digital photos that it can take.

Sarah Joyce

[Rex914]

It's definitely pretty darn powerful considering how small and compact it is, but if you bring it to concerts, you will have to sit up close. It will work well however when your subjects are close up.

Do you have more photos where the background isn't pitch black? I'd like to see how the noise levels are cranked up all the way to ISO 1600 in general. The one's that Jeff posted for the Z1 were noisy at ISO 800.

[speaklightly]

But, Rex-

...Just take a look at dpreview. You will see some good examples. As for me, my Fuji F-10 will not be delivered until 05/18. As soon as I receive it, I will post sample photos, as I always do.

Sarah Joyce

[speaklightly]

Consider this, please. If you could get a simple point and shoot digital camera, costing around $325, that took digital photos that equaled the digital photos produced by dSLR camera like the Canon Digital Rebel (which sell for $900+) would you be interested?

Most folks would indeed be interested. Well, that theoretical camera has arrived on the market. It is the Fuji F-10. Already there are many example photos and one review published and one upcoming (on this website authored by our Jeff Keller).

Will this be the beginning of a whole new generation of digital cameras? Who knows? At least, Olympus has decided that this is the way the market is going. This summer they will release a 8mp (that's right I said 8mp!) Verve styled digital camera capable of high ISO numbers.

Fasten your seatbelts, there is a whole lot more to come.

Sarah Joyce

[speaklightly]

The Cnet review of the F-10 was not as laudatory as the dpreview. However, Cnet saw the F-10 none the less as a breakthrough digital camera.

Cnet noted some purple fringing which dpreview only mentioned in passing. What the future holds for developments such as the Fuji F-10 is the real question. The F-10 may ineed be the start of development in a whole new direction for the point and shoot segment of the digital camera market.

Sarah Joyce

[speaklightly]

Folks,

The fuji F-10 may indeed be the "super" digital camera of 2005! Yep, it is a point and shoot digital camera. But it is capable of very high, 1600 ISO numbers with much less noise than the most convential digital cameras on the market today.

I will soon be posting some excellent high ISO shots from this amazing digital camera.

Sarah Joyce

[EZPhoto]

Jlda-

Fuji has just introduced a new point and shoot digital camera capable of using ISO settings as high as 1600, which is 4 time higher than can be achieved by any of the Panasonic FZ series cameras. That is a huge advanatge. dpreview has reviewed the Fuji F-10 and recommended it.

You might ask what does an ISO 1600/no flash digital photo look like. The photo below illustrates that quite well.

Sarah Joyce

Sarah, you did an excellent shoot!
Congratulation! I know how difficult to get this great moment with so high emotional appeal... Amazing photo!..
Do you use Fuji F-10? I heared that Fuji works more slow then Nikon, for example, but I see your image just great. I need soon take a pictures in theater too, all the same as somebody said: no flash, far from stage, and so on. What the best camera (from any, and why) in your opinion?
Thank you.
Elena

[jlda]

Folks,

The fuji F-10 may indeed be the "super" digital camera of 2005! Yep, it is a point and shoot digital camera. But it is capable of very high, 1600 ISO numbers with much less noise than the most convential digital cameras on the market today.

I will soon be posting some excellent high ISO shots from this amazing digital camera.

Sarah Joyce

Hi Sarah,

Following your advice, I just picked up an F-10. I haven't had a chance to play with it very much yet, but I wanted to ask you if you knew how I could "force" it to use as fast a shutter speed as possible, if that's even possible with this camera. I took it to a volleyball match, and, while zoomed in fairly tight, I noticed that the shutter speed was fairly slow. Zoomed out, the shutter speed was faster. Any ideas?

Thanks,
jlda

[ccc3]

I suggest Nikon D70

--> Nikon D70 Digital Camera (http://nikoncamerareview.blogspot.com/2005/04/nicon-d70-review-class-by-itself.html/)

[jlda]

I suggest Nikon D70

--> Nikon D70 Digital Camera (http://nikoncamerareview.blogspot.com/2005/04/nicon-d70-review-class-by-itself.html/)


Sorry -- this is not a non-dslr...

[speaklightly]

jlda-

Sorry for the delay in replying. I have been doing digital camera workshops in China for three weeks and I just returned. Concerning shutter speeds on the Fuji F-10: when the F-10 is at the wide angle position it will use an aperture of F 2.8 which will give you a fast shutter speed. When the F-10 is fully zoomed to its telephoto position the lens is forced to an aperture of only F 5.0. Therefore the shutter speeds are considerably slower.

Sarah Joyce

[jlda]

jlda-

Sorry for the delay in replying. I have been doing digital camera workshops in China for three weeks and I just returned. Concerning shutter speeds on the Fuji F-10: when the F-10 is at the wide angle position it will use an aperture of F 2.8 which will give you a fast shutter speed. When the F-10 is fully zoomed to its telephoto position the lens is forced to an aperture of only F 5.0. Therefore the shutter speeds are considerably slower.

Sarah Joyce

Thanks for the reply, Sarah. Hope you had fun in China! So, what you're saying is that for action shots, I should refrain from using the zoom, right?

[speaklightly]

jlda-

Yep, the Fuji F-10 in the wideangle position has the full F 2.8 available for shooting. When it is fully zoomed out only an aperture of F5.0 is available for your photo.

Notice that to get the photo posted/attached below in this post, I used the wideangle position with NO ZOOM.

Sarah Joyce

[Corrine]

I was going to start my own thread, but this one seems to be what I need as well.

Currently, I own an Olympus C-700, but it's time for a new camera.

Primarily, I will use the camera to take pictures at rock concerts, so I need a camera with a good zoom, and one that will focus fast and in low, colored, and ever-changing light.

And I will be taking regular family pictures, both indoors and out.

I'm also looking for ease of use, something with a very user friendly interface. I'm not a pro, just someone figuring it out as I go.

I'm looking into the Canon SI S2, the Nikon 8800, and the Panasonic FZ20. (The FZ5 doesn't have manual focus, so it's probably out.) And with the mention of the Fuji F10's high ISO, I'm wondering if this might work well for me, even without the zoom, (I usually manage to be right up front.) but I do love the ultra-zooms.

With my C-700, I've gotten some great concert pictures (great to my inexperienced eyes) by using the sequential shooting mode. Figuring that out really helped me get a lot of great shots. I also know to wait until the band members are standing still, or nearly still, and in better light, to take the picture. I'm not looking for shots that are perfect to the person who knows photography, only to the other fans of the bands I took the pictures of. I just want clear, focused shots, with some depth.

I went to Wolfe Camera, and told the man what I'm telling you here. He handed me the FZ20. He only brought out the S2 when I mentioned that a tilting LCD would be nice for shots over the heads of people in front of me. But he seemed to think the FZ cameras were superior for concert shooting. I couldn't look at the 8800, because he didn't have one in stock.

There are pros and cons for each camera. Which camera, in your opinion, will take the clearest, deepest pictures in the low light at concerts, but still be good for family pictures outdoors or with flash, while being easy to use?

---Corrine

[JTL]

I was going to start my own thread, but this one seems to be what I need as well.

Currently, I own an Olympus C-700, but it's time for a new camera.

Primarily, I will use the camera to take pictures at rock concerts, so I need a camera with a good zoom, and one that will focus fast and in low, colored, and ever-changing light.

And I will be taking regular family pictures, both indoors and out.

I'm also looking for ease of use, something with a very user friendly interface. I'm not a pro, just someone figuring it out as I go.

I'm looking into the Canon SI S2, the Nikon 8800, and the Panasonic FZ20. (The FZ5 doesn't have manual focus, so it's probably out.) And with the mention of the Fuji F10's high ISO, I'm wondering if this might work well for me, even without the zoom, (I usually manage to be right up front.) but I do love the ultra-zooms.

With my C-700, I've gotten some great concert pictures (great to my inexperienced eyes) by using the sequential shooting mode. Figuring that out really helped me get a lot of great shots. I also know to wait until the band members are standing still, or nearly still, and in better light, to take the picture. I'm not looking for shots that are perfect to the person who knows photography, only to the other fans of the bands I took the pictures of. I just want clear, focused shots, with some depth.

I went to Wolfe Camera, and told the man what I'm telling you here. He handed me the FZ20. He only brought out the S2 when I mentioned that a tilting LCD would be nice for shots over the heads of people in front of me. But he seemed to think the FZ cameras were superior for concert shooting. I couldn't look at the 8800, because he didn't have one in stock.

There are pros and cons for each camera. Which camera, in your opinion, will take the clearest, deepest pictures in the low light at concerts, but still be good for family pictures outdoors or with flash, while being easy to use?

---CorrineWell...the FZ can shoot at f/2.8 across the entire zoom range...that could prove beneficial for your situation...but...I think if your seriously into this, you should be considering a dSLR for concert shooting...

[Corrine]

The problem with a DSLR is that most concert venues will not allow any cameras with removable lenses. They consider that a professional camera. I guess they are afraid you are from some magazine and are trying to get pictures without going through the proper channels. It's so bad that if I get the FZ20, I'm considering getting it in silver, because in black it looks too professional. :rolleyes: So DSLRs are out.

Actually, on my original list of things I wanted in a camera was compactness. I really loved the FZ5 for this. But then I decided that picture quality was much more important. But I don't think I want to go as far as to lug lenses and things around.

[JTL]

The problem with a DSLR is that most concert venues will not allow any cameras with removable lenses. They consider that a professional camera. I guess they are afraid you are from some magazine and are trying to get pictures without going through the proper channels. It's so bad that if I get the FZ20, I'm considering getting it in silver, because in black it looks too professional. :rolleyes: So DSLRs are out.

Actually, on my original list of things I wanted in a camera was compactness. I really loved the FZ5 for this. But then I decided that picture quality was much more important. But I don't think I want to go as far as to lug lenses and things around.Too bad!

I have the S2 and it's good...but, for you, I think the FZ20 might be the ticket. An outside choice to look at is the Canon G6. You can shoot at f/2.0 at the wider settings and f/3.0 at tele...but it's only a 4x (140mm) zoom. So, I still think the FZ20 is probably your best choice.

[speaklightly]

JTL and Corinne-

As a lot of folks on this forum already know I take a lot of concert and theater shots. I worked my way through a good number of digital cameras, among the group were the Panasonic FZ 10, 15, and 20 models. However, as has been previously suggested in this thread, I now use dSLR cameras exclusively.

Yes, the FZ-20 could do the job, but you are using the camera at its absolute limits: maximum aperture, maximum ISO etc. The result is that you get very slow shutter speeds that are virtually incapable of stopping any action at all on stage and you become entirely dependent on the amount of light that is available on stage when you want to shoot.

I moved to dSLR's because using the FZ-20 at F 2.8 and ISO 400 was just making shooting very difficult with very spotty, unpreditable results. I needed more ISO and if economically feasible, faster lenses.

Today with a dSLR I can shoot at ISO 3200, and I can do it with a reasonable F3.5 aperture lenses and reasonable shutter speeds that really will stop action on stage without using any flash.

The limitations that I had experienced with digital cameras such as the FZ-20 were gone. Now I no longer have to cross my fingers while going to a concert to take photos, I now get very consistent and much higher quality results. In the FZ-20 I was always fighting the noise gremlin, with dSLR cameras such as the Canon 20D and the Pentax 1stDS, noise is no longer a problem.

I am sorry to make this post so long, but I thought it might be helpful to chronicle the progression I went through. OK, the logical question is this: If you don't want to spent $1,000 to $2,000 to get into a good dSLR outfit, then what do you do?

Remember that the two limiting factors in concert amd theater photography are ISO speeds and fast lenses. I also mentioned that when you can really increase the ISO speed sustantially, the need for a fast lens is reduced considerably. Therefore, you might want to take a look at the newer point and shoot digital cameras that have much higher available ISO speeds such as the Fuji F-10. The F-10 has a max ISO setting of 1600 that gives you much more flexibility. So for around $300, the F-10 will give a piece of the action. Yes, it does have some limitations, such as only 3X optical zoom, and please keep in mind that when the F-10 is zoomed out to that 3X position, the useable aperture falls to F 5.0 which is very limiting. So setup your shots with the F-10 where you are at the wide angle position. Then you can get some really great photos. I have attached a photo from the F-10 to demonstrate what the F-10 really can do if you setup your photos to operate within the F-10 limitations.

Again, my apologies for making this post so long.

Sarah Joyce

[speaklightly]

Now I am sure you would also mlike to see an example of what a dSLR can do as well. Here is a shot from the Chinese Acrobatics Show. I was back almost 100 feet, and to the side, of the stage and I was shooting with my Pentax 1stDS equipped with a Sigma 28-300mm lens. The Exposure for this shot was F 4.0 at 1/125 at a setting of ISO 3200. The shot was made handheld and the camera does not have image stabilization, which I believe is an over rated feature

So this shot could not be done with the Fuji F-10 because there was too much action on stage and the F-10 does not have enough zoom to handle the distance.

Sarah Joyce

[jlda]

Now I am sure you would also mlike to see an example of what a dSLR can do as well. Here is a shot from the Chinese Acrobatics Show. I was back almost 100 feet, and to the side, of the stage and I was shooting with my Pentax 1stDS equipped with a Sigma 28-300mm lens. The Exposure for this shot was F 4.0 at 1/125 at a setting of ISO 3200. The shot was made handheld and the camera does not have image stabilization, which I believe is an over rated feature

So this shot could not be done with the Fuji F-10 because there was too much action on stage and the F-10 does not have enough zoom to handle the distance.

Sarah Joyce

Sarah,

No apologies required for your "long" posts -- they're extremely informative!

Here's a hypothetical question for you, the answer for which I'm hoping is "Yes." Regarding the shot of the Chinese Acrobats (very nice, by the way, as well as the fireworks shot!) -- the only requirement for getting the same (ok -- close to the same) results from the F-10 would be getting closer to the stage, right?

Also, do you happen to have any low-light no-flash action shots taken with your F-10 that you'd be willing to post?

Thanks,
jlda

[speaklightly]

jlda-

Yes, to take the Shanghai Acrobats photo you would have to be in the few rows of seats, near the center of the stage. You would have to use your F-10 in the wide angle position, and understand that the shutter speed you get will be dependent on the level of lighting. With ISO 1600, and the lighting shown in that photo, my guess (and it is only a guess) is that the shutter speed would have been around 1/50th.

So as I said before, if you are willing to operate within the limitations of the F-10 you will be amazed at the digital photos you can get. Yes, I will continue to post a series of no flash/low light level photos. This one was taken with my Canon 20D at an ISO setting of 1600 and an available aperture of F 3.5. So it will give you an idea of what ISO 1600 can produce.

Sarah Joyce